Re: BFD

[William Gibson Parker <wgp@dana.ucc.nau.edu>]

I definitely think that George was being ironic.

On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, John V Jackson wrote:

> Peter Von Sholly wrote:
> << As for BCF, I can only add my own sentiments: BFD.  I am
> personally sick unto death of hearing a few individuals' long-winded
> tirades and counter-tirades on the subject.  But knock yourselves
> out...that's merely my take on it. Without a fuller picture from the fossil
> record, it seems pointless to get too dogmatic about any of this. >>
> 
> 
> Dinogeorge replied:
> < I agree. Almost every discussion on this list would benefit from a fuller
> fossil record. There is no way to test or confirm any but the most trivial
> hypotheses about dinosaur endothermy; dinosaur behavior, habits, ecology, and
> lifestyles; dinosaur phylogeny and relationships; dinosaur diseases; and
> dinosaur life appearance (color, stance, and so forth). On this list,
> therefore, we should discuss nothing but historical aspects of dinosaurology,
> dinosaur descriptions and nomenclature, and the reconstruction and life
> restoration of existing dinosaur specimens in motion pictures and as art. >
> 
> 
> This would rob the subject of its value as a puzzle.  Speculation is the 
> mother and father of science; human brains were designed to make use of 
> uncertain knowledge.  Besides how far could we get with reconstructing dinos' 
> life appearances without guessing and arguing?  (I half suspect George was 
> being ironic when he said the above!)
> 
> One of my main points though is that K-BCF is being airbrushed out of history 
> by those who ought to know better.
>  
> 
> JJ
>